Each Monday we present brief excerpts of recent posts from five of Canada’s award­-winning legal blogs chosen at random* from more than 80 recent Clawbie winners. In this way we hope to promote their work, with their permission, to as wide an audience as possible.

In a recent B.C. decision, the court grappled with whether it had the legal authority to: 1) order a man to take positive steps divorce his wife; and 2) uphold a Canadian-court-granted divorce in Iran, in circumstances where the Iranian courts themselves had refused to do so. The couple had been married in Iran in 1994, where they entered into a traditional marriage contract. They moved to Canada where they separated in 2012. Both parties embarked on litigation in Canada to to pursue certain divorce- and child support/custody-related rights, …

On Friday, May 4, 2018, the Alberta Securities Commission (“ASC”) announced an addition to the Credit for Exemplary Cooperation in Enforcement Matters Policy (ASC Policy 15-601) (the “Policy”); namely, the ASC will allow respondents to enter into no-contest settlement agreements (i.e., settlements that do not require an admission of wrongdoing) in certain circumstances. This is a change from the ASC’s prior policy decision not to allow for no-contest settlement agreements, …

Canada’s extradition process is broken. It does not take any expertise in extradition law to reach this conclusion. After all, you don’t need to be an expert mechanic to reach the conclusion that an abandoned jalopy is a piece of junk. Sometimes it only takes one tragic case to show that the law is an ass. And unfortunately, the heartbreaking case of Hassan Diab is that case. …

This would be funny in the ironic ha-ha sense if it wasn’t so damned serious. While the rest of us were watching UCP members debate policy resolutions in a conference hall in Red Deer, Handmaids for Kenney stood silently outside the convention hall and quickly discovered just how unprincipled and ideologically flabby Jason Kenney and the UCP really are. …

R v. Alex. is a 2017 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court had to determine whether the Crown needed to prove that a police officer’s request that an individual blow into an approved screening device was reasonable before it could admit the results of the breathalyzer without having to call a toxicologist and a technician as a witness. …